scaffold_express_project

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Generate an Express.js project with TypeScript and best practices' implies a scaffold generation action but says nothing about whether it creates files in the current directory, requires an empty directory, overwrites existing files, installs dependencies, runs generators, or needs authentication/API keys. The api_key parameter suggests authentication might be required, but the description never explains when or why, leaving a meaningful behavioral gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler. It earns its place entirely and is appropriately sized for a scaffold tool whose schema carries the parameter detail. It loses one point only because the phrase 'best practices' is generic and adds little concrete decision value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a project-scaffolding tool, this description is thin. There is no output schema, no annotation safety profile, and no description of what the scaffold includes, what files it creates, or what happens after invocation. The schema documents four parameters but the description does not connect them (e.g., which ORMs can be selected, what 'best practices' means, whether TypeScript defaults to true). A tool at this complexity with no annotations should provide more behavioral and contextual detail.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (project_name, orm, api_key, typescript) already has a description in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning 'TypeScript' in the prose, which partially aligns with the typescript boolean parameter. That is enough to hold the baseline 3, but the description does not explain the relationship between orm and the generated project or clarify why api_key is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('an Express.js project'), plus two distinguishing technologies ('TypeScript and best practices'). It differentiates from scaffold_spring_boot and scaffold_go_project, which use the same scaffold_* prefix, because those target different frameworks. It is not, however, as explicit as the get_calls example about exactly what the generated project contains or how it relates to siblings like generate_express_middleware or generate_express_api_routes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related siblings such as generate_express_middleware, generate_express_api_routes, generate_nestjs_module, scaffold_fastapi_project, scaffold_django_project, scaffold_spring_boot, or scaffold_go_project. The only implied context is scaffolding a new project rather than generating a specific component, but this is not stated explicitly and no alternatives or exclusions are named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.